Cogglamp wrote:However, things have begun to change even in some of the monarchies. Qatar and Saudi Arabia are providing for additional rights. While they're still under a regime of some sorts, the progress shouldn't be discounted. It's a short term fix and isn't a lasting option as both countries seem to keep the majority of its populace quiet by using its vast petrodollar resources in the form of public spending.

I think you are vastly over-stating the impact the Arab Spring had in countries that are not Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya.

I'm not sure how I "vastly over-stated" the impact as I said it's not a long term solution and recognized that they're still under a regime. However, discounting the fact that some rights are being granted, you're ignoring some intrinsic desires of the common people that once you taste a little bit of freedom, you crave for it more and more.

It will probably take decades to see the real extent of the change in that region but I think that even the slightest bit of reform/change is good. That's all I was getting at.

You claim there has been "progress" in nations like Saudi Arabia and Qatar.There has been no real progress in those nations.

Name me one right that a Saudi has that they didn't have before the Arab Spring?I worked in the US Embassy to Saudi Arabia during the Arab Spring. I assure you that, if anything, the Sunni Monarchies got even MORE totalitarian, not less. That is unlikely to change any time in the foreseeable future.

The thing a lot of people don't understand is that few people in the Middle East (note: not Northeast Africa) actually WANT democracy, in the sense we think of it. They want tribal/sectarian power balance.This can be easily confused with wanting democracy, in situations where a minority tribe is oppressing a majority tribe.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

Fridmarr wrote:The bulk of those problems are with front line troops, but there are plenty of other positions that have marketable skills.

You don't build infrastructure with tanks and guns, you need standard equipment for that. We employed many civilians for those ends as well.

I don't have a cavalier attitude toward the US debt, but your question was suggesting that we are currently feeling some pain from "draining our vast economic resources".

Despite all the conjecture about oil, we didn't go to Iraq to turn a profit making the focus of your question specious in the first place. We'll have to wait and see how the security aspect turns out, certainly the potential is far better than it once was.

I think suggesting that at the end of the day we probably won't be better off especially when you factor in the human cost (which makes the financial discussion seem childish) is a fair argument. It's also difficult because there are certainly scenarios that could have been costly had we done nothing just from the lack of stability that was there and the political turmoil that was on the horizon, much less ill intent.

But I think Sky's question was pretty fair because this wasn't all about us either. The people suffering under the previous regime and their plight going forward do count and it's really the only thing that can compare to the human cost on our side.

In terms of generating economic stimulus, what is the difference between defense-related government spending, and other government spending?

I often hear Conservatives making the case that government spending cannot create jobs or stimulate the economy (this being the primary attack against the "failure" of the way Obama combated the recession), but then turn around and use "but it would destroy jobs" as an argument against cutting defense spending.This seems like cognitive dissonance to me. So which is it; can government deficit spending stimulate the economy, or can't it?

edit: I'd also point to the massive veteran unemployment rate despite getting free college via the GI Bill as evidence that participation in the military is somewhat less-than-ideal for launching people into the productive work force.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

Government spending certainly can stimulate the economy. I'm not sure conservatives say that it doesn't in the plain sense.

I think their point is that it's ultimately inefficient. Generally to create jobs with government spending you had to take money from people and then invest it in the jobs creating program. That's an inefficient process when done properly as it is, but then you add the federal government behind it and all that bureaucracy and it's even worse.

Now you can borrow that money too (which is what we usually do), but eventually you'll pay that money back plus interest, so at some point that cost will catch up with you. Because of that, each year we literally burn money on absolutely nothing of value to us, it's just an interest payment. When liberals say that the best stimulus we have is unemployment, and all that that is, is literally giving money to people, then the logical thought is, why not keep taxes low and the money in the job creators hands in the first place. So raising taxes to fund a jobs program, or to fund an interest payment on a previously unfunded jobs program, can result in a net loss of jobs over the long term.

Defense spending isn't a good way to stimulate the economy, you guys have pointed out some of the issues with it and those are valid points. But it's not a zero either, in the short term. Long term for an economy like we have now, it's terrible. Unlike the 40s were defense spending created a massive bubble that kind of had to be restrained.

If you want to talk specifically to the stimulus and the problems with it, I can. But conservatives weren't saying that it wouldn't create jobs, but that it was too expensive for its short term nature.

"I don't believe that unelected judges should be making these decisions." -Paul Ryan

Republican ticket officially is against the Supreme Court, and the process of judicial review established by the Founding Fathers.

Holy cow.

Why aren't more people talking about this?Are we really so off the deep end that no one even bats an eye when a candidate for the presidential ticket advocates overturning the entire system of checks and balances and three-branch system of government?

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

Fridmarr wrote:Government spending certainly can stimulate the economy. I'm not sure conservatives say that it doesn't in the plain sense.

I think their point is that it's ultimately inefficient. Generally to create jobs with government spending you had to take money from people and then invest it in the jobs creating program. That's an inefficient process when done properly as it is, but then you add the federal government behind it and all that bureaucracy and it's even worse.

Now you can borrow that money too (which is what we usually do), but eventually you'll pay that money back plus interest, so at some point that cost will catch up with you. Because of that, each year we literally burn money on absolutely nothing of value to us, it's just an interest payment. When liberals say that the best stimulus we have is unemployment, and all that that is, is literally giving money to people, then the logical thought is, why not keep taxes low and the money in the job creators hands in the first place. So raising taxes to fund a jobs program, or to fund an interest payment on a previously unfunded jobs program, can result in a net loss of jobs over the long term.

Defense spending isn't a good way to stimulate the economy, you guys have pointed out some of the issues with it and those are valid points. But it's not a zero either, in the short term. Long term for an economy like we have now, it's terrible. Unlike the 40s were defense spending created a massive bubble that kind of had to be restrained.

If you want to talk specifically to the stimulus and the problems with it, I can. But conservatives weren't saying that it wouldn't create jobs, but that it was too expensive for its short term nature.

I'd like to have a conversation about this.

Preliminary questions for you:

1) Was conducting stimulus spending to combat the recession justified? If you answer with "no", then what would you have done instead and why?

2) What specific elements of the stimulus spending do you have problems with, out of the greater whole? Do you dislike them because you consider them to be A)ineffective as stimulus, or B)not worth doing for some other reason?

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

I think their point is that it's ultimately inefficient. Generally to create jobs with government spending you had to take money from people and then invest it in the jobs creating program. That's an inefficient process when done properly as it is, but then you add the federal government behind it and all that bureaucracy and it's even worse.

The fact is that this goes against historical facts. We've now got a pretty good understanding of fiscal multipliers, and targeted stimulus is about four times as efficient as tax cuts.So, yeah.

Aueron I'm not sure we are talking exactly the same thing. I mean, I'd agree that government spending is going to cause more "stimulus" than a tax cut. I did not mean to suggest otherwise, though I think I can see how my comments came off that way. In a silly hypothetical if you took 1 million dollars and gave it out in 10 dollar chunks to 100,000 folks, very little would come of that in the short term. Its stimulating effect would be small. Long term that recurring money starts to yield some power across the board, but as I stimulus, it's rather unimpressive.

On the flip side 1 million dollars specifically "targetted" and concentrated towards jobs is going to see some returns, much more than a spread out tax cut. Long term though, as interest is applied, that 1 million becomes...a lot more and each year an opportunity cost is lost with money having to be spent on interest instead of a jobs program or left in the tax payers hands.

You end up with a lot of variables when you want to look at the long term that can drastically affect the final tally. In the short term though I don't think there is much debate.

BrekkieRyan's comments: At first glance that doesn't strike me as troublesome. I know you and I had the conversation about Obama's comments earlier this year, I don't think that left a sort of lasting impression either. One could argue that the chief justice was somewhat saying the same thing with his decision on Obamacare, and the justices do at times comments on things that are questions for the people (legislature) not for them to decide on. So without context, it's really hard to have much of an opinion on that comment.

The answer to your first question is yes, I'm ok with government stimulus. The short answer to your second question is that my biggest complaint was the lack of infrastructure spending. I think it was a very very rushed plan with almost no reason to hurry in such a way, and the result was a significant missed opportunity. WIthout the infrastructure spending, we are kind of left with a big bill for a bit of a one time bump, not something that provides as much returns long term as we could have had.

KlaudI think most of us would agree that military spending should be significantly reduced going forward, and certainly some of that spending could go towards domestic policy. Though specifically to your example, you are somewhat talking apples and oranges. Schools are typically primarily funded at the state and local levels, and of course the military is at the federal level.

Fridmarr wrote:KlaudI think most of us would agree that military spending should be significantly reduced going forward, and certainly some of that spending could go towards domestic policy. Though specifically to your example, you are somewhat talking apples and oranges. Schools are typically primarily funded at the state and local levels, and of course the military is at the federal level.

I never said that the money should go to schools first (although I'd not mind it thru federal grants) -- in fact, the first thing I said was that the money could go to helping VAs.

So forgive me if I'd rather have the US buy one less F-22 and use that money on helping our VAs or someone else that really needs it.

One valid point this article has is the argument people give for voting for Romney. Rather than capitulating valid reasons for voting Romney, all I hear is "we need to get Obama out of office." There are plenty of valid reasons for not voting for either one...

Fridmarr wrote:Aueron The answer to your first question is yes, I'm ok with government stimulus. The short answer to your second question is that my biggest complaint was the lack of infrastructure spending. I think it was a very very rushed plan with almost no reason to hurry in such a way, and the result was a significant missed opportunity. WIthout the infrastructure spending, we are kind of left with a big bill for a bit of a one time bump, not something that provides as much returns long term as we could have had.

Well, darn.Here I was all prepared to launch a gigantic essay. But I actually think that's a fair criticism.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

Brekkie wrote:"I don't believe that unelected judges should be making these decisions." -Paul Ryan

Republican ticket officially is against the Supreme Court, and the process of judicial review established by the Founding Fathers.

Holy cow.

Why aren't more people talking about this?Are we really so off the deep end that no one even bats an eye when a candidate for the presidential ticket advocates overturning the entire system of checks and balances and three-branch system of government?

Unfortunately I missed the Veep debate, as the FOB I'm at only shows sports in the DFAC. I was able to watch the first Prez debate while I was at the terminal at Bagram trying to get the hell over to here. I'd like to know the greater context behind Ryan's comment. In all fairness the Founding Fathers did NOT give the Court judicial review. Show me in what article or what amendment is stated that the Supreme Court should have the power to uphold whether or not a law is unconstitutional. That power was seized upon by John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, and it was a move that pissed off BOTH SIDES of the case.

In the modern era, most people who are aware of it have accepted the practice of judicial review in much the same way the most people accept the concept of the Federal Reserve, the income tax, etc. as a construct of our society. That said, strict constructionists (Of whom I count myself a member) hold that it is the role of the court to uphold the Constitution, and that striking down a law is done because it is outside the bounds of government. This should be a check to the power of Congress to pass whatever the Hell it wants, and the President to sign off on it. My main concern to that respect is judicial activism, which is predicated on the idea that the Constitution is somehow flexible (Apart from the amendment process), and that should adjust to fit the times or the morals of the moment. I strongly disagree with that assumption, and if we really want to change the Constitution, we should amend it. That said, again, I have no idea what the context of that statement is, and my internet sucks too much to try to go look it up.

Ryan basically said he'd overturn Roe vrs Wade and ban it.Biden said that his personal religious beliefs are that it is wrong, but he doesn't believe the government should have the power to impose those beliefs on people who don't agree.

And note that I said the "Founding Fathers", not "the Constitution". The Constitution makes zero mention of judicial review and the 3-branch system of checks and balances, but the system was set in place by the Founding Fathers nonetheless. And has worked just fine for more than 200 years. But suddenly the supposed "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution/Founding Principles" want to overturn the entire thing because a single outcome didn't go their way. Enlightening.

If you believe in limited government, I think that position cannot be rationally reconciled with the belief that it is the place of government to make a law as invasive as a ban on abortion.Overturning Roe vrs Wade would clearly be judicial activism, because it would be expanding the power of the government in a way that has zero basis in the constitution. There is no rational way to claim that the opposite is true; that somehow saying "the government doesn't have the power to ban X, since that power isn't granted it in the Constitution" is legislating from the bench.

You can be morally opposed to abortion all you want, and that's fine. I'd disagree with you, but no one is forcing anyone to GET abortions they don't want. If you think abortions are wrong, then DON'T GET ONE. Pop out as many fundamentalist evangelical babies as you like and teach them all that men lived with dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old and that they should be ashamed for masturbating. I think that is an abomination and an abuse of the rights of those children, but that is your right, because they are your children.

To me, the GOP position on banning abortion is MASSIVE government overreach.Which is ironic, considering the totally fictional self-narrative the Republicans have created for themselves.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

Ryan NEVER said he would BAN abortion. He did say that he though that un-elected judges should not decide that fate, that it should be left up to a vote of elected congressional peoples.

I have read this thread in and out but have not chosen to participate in it since I am center right, and it is quite obvious that 90% of this thread's participants are left leaning and I don't want to get a headache debating over the internetz.

But please don't say that he said he would BAN it, because he didn't, you are being very misleading by putting words in his mouth, I know you want Obama to win, but that doesn't mean you have to make things up. He has no power to BAN it. Even if the courts ever sent it back to the states, it would be a state issue, and a Vice President would have no power to BAN it. About the only thing he could do would be to cast a tie breaking vote in the Senate which is super highly unlikely.

He has said quite explicitly that he wants to see abortion banned. He has repeated this over and over many, many times in the past. There's no mystery or ambiguity there. With Romney, perhaps, Ryan no.

And the GOP ticket DOES have the power to ban abortion, albeit indirectly. The next President is likely to have 1, maybe 2 nominations to the Supreme Court. Filling those seats with pro-life crusaders is enough to tip the balance, and is 100% within the President's power, Congress or not.

A overturning of Roe vrs Wade would, as you said, push things to the states because Congress is too inconveniently filled with Democrats to pass a national ban. And the end result would be a flurry of state bans in most of the red states, which is no less abominable a regression of civil liberties simply because it is non-universal.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All this equivocating about "exceptions for rape/incest/health of the mother" is a pretense trying to make their position seem more moderate than it really is.There is, effectively, little difference between a "ban with exceptions for x, y, z", and a total and complete ban.

Say a law in the state of North Xissippi is put in place, banning abortion "except in cases of rape, incest, or when the health of the mother is threatened".

Who gets to decide whether one of those exceptions is applicable?

-Is a woman who is raped forced to wait through lengthy legal proceedings for proof of the rape to be established, which is almost certain to take longer than 9 months?

-If not the legal system, then some (statistically male) state government official gets to decide if it was "legitimate rape" or not?

-Or alternatively, if there is no burden of proof on whether an exception applies, why pass a ban at all? Anyone who wants an abortion can simply claim that it was due to rape. I doubt the people who would pass such a ban in the first place would stand for this, which would lead to increasingly restrictive and invasive regulations.

Not to mention, Doctors would simply no longer provide the service, regardless of the exceptions. And if the procedure is not available, there is de facto no difference from there being a total ban.

Currently, few doctors perform an abortion procedure, and if a ban-with-exceptions was passed, they would likely all stop offering it entirely.If a doctor performs an abortion in the case of a women whose health is endangered due to the pregnancy, and then it is later determined that her life was not endangered *ENOUGH* (according to who?) to warrant the exception, suddenly that doctor has performed an illegal abortion and is facing jail time. It is unlikely doctors would be willing to risk it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is a massive, massive, massive issue, and the Republican party does its self a disservice by seeming to care about fetuses, but not actual children once they have been born.A true enemy of abortion would want to prevent it by any means. And the most effective means of preventing abortion is through available contraception, effective and science-based sexual education for children before they become sexually active, and through empowered family planning and health services. ALL of which the GOP has actively undermined.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

The answer to your first question is yes, I'm ok with government stimulus. The short answer to your second question is that my biggest complaint was the lack of infrastructure spending. I think it was a very very rushed plan with almost no reason to hurry in such a way, and the result was a significant missed opportunity. WIthout the infrastructure spending, we are kind of left with a big bill for a bit of a one time bump, not something that provides as much returns long term as we could have had.

An economic system has inertia. The $1m given in $10 chunks (on a much bigger scale, of course, $1m is nothing on a federal level) is going to create demand, and kick back up the spiral.Economic systems are not temporally stalled: If a stimulus creates economic activity, the activity has not a date of expiry (until the involved parties find something better to do: When that happens, the crisis' out. I think we can all agree to nearly any level of spending would've been justified in 2009 to get the USA out of the depression immediately, even 100-150% of the gdp. (Yes, there were economists proposing that.. Krugman first. Obama wanted a much bigger stimulus package, or so his officials claim, but that got blocked by the usual idiots)Any spending that actually gets spent (and not locked up in savings) would work. Welfare, infrastructure, public services.. anything.

For abortion: Yes, Ryan has said he wants to ban it. During a nationally televised debate. Multiple times. Is that even up for claims?

On left-and-right: There's no left in the USA. There's center-right (Dems) and Far-Right (Reps).As an european, it's hard to not wonder how the heck republicans still get more than 5% of the vote, let alone 50%. Romney/Ryan are cartoonishly evil, hold no real positions but FUCK YOU, GOT MINE, and so on. Perhaps if the GOP dies down, you guys can get a real left party attacking the dems from the left.. but i fear you'll have to wait the boomers to die down for that.

I don't mean to imply that the GOP are the only ones who can be hypocritical when it comes to reverting to other levels of government when a decision goes against them. The Dems are guilty of the exact same thing when it comes to gay marriage and legalization of weed.

In general, though, those efforts are different because again it boils down to government overreach into people's lives. In general, I feel like "banning things" is something the government should do as little as possible, and ONLY for good, substantiated, data-supported reasons."Tradition", "Religious beliefs", and "it makes me feel icky" are not good enough reasons.

Theckhd wrote:big numbers are the in-game way of expressing that Brekkie's penis is huge.

Ryan basically said he'd overturn Roe vrs Wade and ban it.Biden said that his personal religious beliefs are that it is wrong, but he doesn't believe the government should have the power to impose those beliefs on people who don't agree.

Thanks for the heads up. I'm on a FOB with about 300 US personnel, and the only channels the DFAC ever shows are sports. I hate sports, and even I'm starting to track team progress for MLB and the NFL.

Brekkie wrote:And note that I said the "Founding Fathers", not "the Constitution". The Constitution makes zero mention of judicial review and the 3-branch system of checks and balances, but the system was set in place by the Founding Fathers nonetheless. And has worked just fine for more than 200 years. But suddenly the supposed "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution/Founding Principles" want to overturn the entire thing because a single outcome didn't go their way. Enlightening.

There are a couple of SCOTUS decisions I'm not a fan of. The eminent domain ruling, Citizen's United, the incredibly retarded rationale of John Roberts on the ACA(At least the libs on the court were honest about their thinking, and I can respect that even if I don't agree). There's a pretty good video on Youtube of Penn Gillette espousing his atheism and his libertarianism, which both happen to identify my personal thoughts on both subjects rather well. I'm not going to dig up the link, because Sniper Hill sucks the ass.

Brekkie wrote:If you believe in limited government, I think that position cannot be rationally reconciled with the belief that it is the place of government to make a law as invasive as a ban on abortion.Overturning Roe vrs Wade would clearly be judicial activism, because it would be expanding the power of the government in a way that has zero basis in the constitution. There is no rational way to claim that the opposite is true; that somehow saying "the government doesn't have the power to ban X, since that power isn't granted it in the Constitution" is legislating from the bench.

You can be morally opposed to abortion all you want, and that's fine. I'd disagree with you, but no one is forcing anyone to GET abortions they don't want. If you think abortions are wrong, then DON'T GET ONE. Pop out as many fundamentalist evangelical babies as you like and teach them all that men lived with dinosaurs and the Earth is 6000 years old and that they should be ashamed for masturbating. I think that is an abomination and an abuse of the rights of those children, but that is your right, because they are your children.

Actually, I agree with you. I am morally opposed to the concept of abortion in most cases, and would never condone it had I put myself in the situation where it were an option. That said, I support its legality, and that it should be an option. My personal choice has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with two women I've known who had them, and the pure trauma the whole ordeal put them through. I couldn't wish that on anyone, but I support that it needs to be an option if women and their partners need to go through with it, and it's none of my damn business if it is. That said, I also don't want to pay for it in most cases either. Additionally, I am not a single-issue voter.

In reference to the Penn comment I made earlier, just because I don't think publicly funded libraries are absolutely vital to the existence of society, I'm not advocating that we torch them and rely on Wikipedia. Similarly, I'm not advocating the removal of the safety net. There are constructs and institutions that are entirely engrained on our culture, and even if we wanted to phase them out, it would have to be done... progressively. What bothers me at this point is that there are now apparently only two options in this conversation, extremly stupid A, or extremely stupid B. My personal and political beliefs involve support for as much individual liberty and responsibility as society can rationally and realistically handle. Neither side offers me that. So I'm going with the lesser of what I perceive to be as two evils, since the Libertarian party never really holds much interest for me, and I like to be able to vote for a candidate that has a chance of implementing at least SOME of the policies I support. Unlike the extreme Left or Right, I'm ok with a partial solution and working towards a better one.

aureon wrote:As an european, it's hard to not wonder how the heck republicans still get more than 5% of the vote, let alone 50%. Romney/Ryan are cartoonishly evil, hold no real positions but FUCK YOU, GOT MINE, and so on.

And this is where the debate gets really stupid. Keep this utter nonsense out of this thread so it doesn't digress into the shitfest such ridiculous opinions are bound to create.

Brekkie wrote:And the GOP ticket DOES have the power to ban abortion, albeit indirectly.

That's somewhat doubtful as those vacancies would have to come from the left, and we really don't know exactly how each justice would vote on the issue now. I don't suspect any of them save maybe Scalia are likely to be quick to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Not to mention, that if the Dems thought a proposed justice was going to vote to overturn Roe vs Wade, the GOP would have to have a filibuster proof majority to get him/her confirmed, and that's simply not going to happen.

Brekkie wrote:But suddenly the supposed "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution/Founding Principles" want to overturn the entire thing because a single outcome didn't go their way. Enlightening.

This is where you lose me, I think it's a massive reach to be honest. Conservatives have always been very critical of the court system citing judicial activism. A VP nominee suggesting that one decision is better handled as a legislative manner instead of a judicial manner does not constitute "Conservative Defenders of the Constitution wanting to overturn the entire thing." Conservatives, outside of the religious right are generally OK with abortion, by the way.

I really wish conservatives could get away with picking bits and pieces like that and wrapping the entire left in them as doctrine...

Brekkie wrote:If you believe in limited government, I think that position cannot be rationally reconciled with the belief that it is the place of government to make a law as invasive as a ban on abortion.

That assumes that you are looking at the issue through the prism of the left. Admittedly they control the debate, so unquestionably this issue is considered a "woman's right". I think that those opposed to abortion look at it through the rights of the human that is being killed.

aureon wrote:As an european, it's hard to not wonder how the heck republicans still get more than 5% of the vote, let alone 50%. Romney/Ryan are cartoonishly evil, hold no real positions but FUCK YOU, GOT MINE, and so on.

And this is where the debate gets really stupid. Keep this utter nonsense out of this thread so it doesn't digress into the shitfest such ridiculous opinions are bound to create.

Sure, let's ignore everything i say because i have expressed my incredulity that far-right parties still get high votes on the other side of the atlantic.The beauty of truth it's that it's still valid, whoever believes it. There's videos of Romney flip-flopping on every issue known to man, but that's not allowed to be said in civilized debates, right? Better spout lies to defend sport-team thinking.

Conservatives don't get away with picking bits and generalizing the left because they do not allow their 'bits' to become mainstream thinking supported by presidential nominees. There's nothing wrong with being a conservative, or right-wing. But if you support a bullshit-spouting canditate, and/or his party, you can't really bemoan people blaming the party for what's in it's platform.It's not that "A few nutheads" in the GOP are against abortion: It's right there in the official platform. If there was liberal "Atomz are bad, let's all live on wind/solar starting TOMORROW!!!!!" in the official Dem platform, you think it wouldn't be called out?

http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_Renewing/ wrote:We call on the government to permanently ban all federal funding and subsidies for abortion and healthcare plans that include abortion coverage.

We urge enactment of pending legislation that would require parental consent to transport girls across state lines for abortions.

Ignore that, if you will, and get back to the economic side:

Any spending that actually gets spent (and not locked up in savings) would work. Welfare, infrastructure, public services.. anything.

This was the main point. And it's the main point that disputes the whole "Romney is more able than Obama to handle the economy".

No, if you want to argue something specific that's fine. If you literally want to call them evil and sum it up in something as stupid as FUCK YOU I GOT MINE, then no that's not reasonable discourse. It's merely hatemongering of the closed minded, and we don't have a place for that here.

Believe me, there's plenty of those bits available from mainstream democratic politicians, and they'll get their run on talk radio which seems to be dominated by the right, but on most other platforms they'll get no traction.

Economically, you seem to be munging what provides the most "stimulus" with more sound long term economic policies. You can't tax yourself to prosperity, and neither can you cut taxes to prosperity. Taxes aren't complicated, there's a price point at which they are effective, like pretty much everything else. And if you want to argue that Obama has a better grasp on that than Romney, that's great your input is welcome.

Hmm. I hate to play Devil's Advocate here, but I agree with Aureon. I think the GOP is so far off the Deep end of the right it's almost sad. I think the Dems have gotten a little crazy too though, so I'm not specifically attacking the GOP (Although I think they are by and far way worse for civil/human rights then the Dems).

Some days lately I've been wanting to run around Washington DC With a huge mallet. This mallet will have "SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE" Written on it, and I will bash it into the heads of all of our politicians until they understand what it means.